header-logo header-logo

The cab rank rule: English barristers in foreign courts

10 February 2021 / Matthew Happold
Issue: 7920 / Categories: Features , Profession , International justice
printer mail-detail
38905
When the cab rank rule is no longer a defence: Matthew Happold on considerations when accepting instructions overseas
  • Barristers have hit the headlines recently for taking instructions on controversial cases in foreign jurisdictions, to which the cab rank rule obliging a barrister to accept any work does not apply.
  • When accepting such cases, barristers should bear in mind whether those foreign proceedings are at odds with their core duties under the Bar Standard Board’s Code of Conduct, particularly in politically sensitive cases.

Recent events have put barristers’ professional ethics in the spotlight and raised questions about the scope and importance of the cab rank rule. News last month that David Perry QC had accepted instructions to prosecute a number of prominent pro-democracy activities in the Hong Kong courts gave rise to extensive, often virulently expressed, criticism. Foreign secretary Dominic Rabb said that he could not understand how ‘anyone of good conscience’ could agree to act in such a case. Baroness Kennedy QC called Mr Perry’s

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Kingsley Napley—Paul Davidoff

Kingsley Napley—Paul Davidoff

Partner joins as lead of international tax desk

Reed Smith—Michael Darowski

Reed Smith—Michael Darowski

International arbitration partner joins disputes team in London

Shakespeare Martineau — 12 newly qualified solicitors

Shakespeare Martineau — 12 newly qualified solicitors

Firm celebrates strong retention and new talent across practice areas

NEWS
MPs have expressed disappointment after the government confirmed it will not consider updating the parental leave system until at least 2027
In his latest 'Civil way' column for this week's NLJ, Stephen Gold delivers a witty roundup of procedural updates and judicial oddities. From the rise in litigant-in-person hourly rates (£24 from October) to the Supreme Court’s venue hire options (canapés in Courtroom 1, anyone?), Gold blends legal insight with dry humour
In July, the Supreme Court quashed the convictions of Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo, ruling that trial judges had wrongly directed juries to treat profit-motivated Libor submissions as inherently dishonest. In this week’s NLJ, David Stern and James Fletcher of 5 St Andrew’s Hill reflect on the decision
Lord Neuberger, former president of the Supreme Court, shares his views on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill in this week's NLJ with William Raven
In this week's issue of NLJ, Emma Brunning and Dharshica Thanarajasingham of Birketts unpack the high-conflict financial remedy case TF v SF [2025] EWHC 1659 (Fam). The husband’s conduct—described by the judge as a ‘masterclass in gaslighting’—included hiding a £9.5m deferred payment from the sale of a port acquired post-separation. Despite his claims that the port was non-matrimonial, the court found its value rooted in marital assets and efforts
back-to-top-scroll